Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Bom) 90

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. KARNIK, J.
Ambadas Devram Chavan - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.640 Of 2015
Decided On : 22-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pawan Mali.
For the Respondent: Mr. A. R. Patil.

The judgment establishes the importance of proving the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue, and the discretionary nature of the presumption of fact under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7, Section 13(1)(d), Section 13(2) - The judgment discusses the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the presumption of fact, and the evidence required to establish the guilt of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, accused No.2, was convicted for offenses under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case involved the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused No.1 and accused No.2 in relation to the renewal of a fair price shop license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount against the appellant. The evidence of the complainant and the shadow witness was at variance, and the demand for the bribe amount was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the variance in the evidence of witnesses, and the application of the presumption of fact under Section 20 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue, either through direct evidence, documentary evidence, or circumstantial evidence. It highlighted the importance of corroborating the evidence of witnesses and the discretionary nature of the presumption of fact.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the impugned order convicting the appellant was quashed and set aside. The fine amount paid was to be refunded to the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State. Perused the paper-book and notes of evidence.

2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-accused No.2. The accused No.2 was convicted by the Special Judge (Anti- Corruption) Pune for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter “P.C. Act”, for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Along with the accused No.1, the appellant was also convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3. PW-1 – Pramod Roopchand Solanki is the complainant. The appellant-accused No.2 was working as a Senior Clerk in Food Distribution Office. PW-1 filed the complaint at Exhibit- 11. Santoshi Roopchand Solanki is the real sister of PW-1. She is having a fair price shop in her name. Once during the investigation, as a result of some alleged irregularities her license was cancelled. In appeal the cancellation order was set aside. A request was made by PW-1 to Mr. Dnyaneshwar Jawanjal, Deputy Commissioner, Pune for processing the renewal of the license in view of PW-1’s sister having succeeded in the appeal. PW-1 deposed that Mr. Jawanjal demanded bribe amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Mr. Jawanjal asked PW-1 to meet Mr. Patki (accused No.1) who was working as a Junior Clerk in the office. After negotiation the amount was reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-.

4. PW-1 met Mr. Jawanjal and offered to pay part payment in the sum of Rs.50,000/- within 2 to 3 months. Mr. Jawanjal however was not ready to grant this long a time. The accused No.1 informed PW-1 that the amount will have to be arranged within eight days. A complaint dated 29.10.2012 at Exhibit-11 came to be recorded in the Anti- Corruption Bureau office (hereafter “A.C.B.”, for short). A.C.B. officials decided to verify the demand. A.C.B. officials hid a voice recorder on the person of PW-1. PW-1 and panch witness Mr. Gunjal were sent to meet accused No.1. Accused No.1 asked PW-1 whether the amount was ready. PW-1 informed that the amount was ready whereupon accused No.1 told him that he would meet Mr. Jawanjal and request him to sign the order. Accused No.1 entered the cabin of Mr. Jawanjal and asked PW-1 to bring the amount. The transcript of the recorded conversation was prepared in the office of the A.C.B.

5. On 31.10.2012, PW-1 and panch witnesses again visited the A.C.B. office. A.C.B. officials sent PW-1 and panch witness to meet Mr. Jawanjal. Again voice recorder was planted on the person of PW-1. They met accused No.1. PW-1 entered the cabin of Mr. Jawanjal. Mr. Jawanjal asked PW-1 to meet accused No.1-Patki and act as per his say. Accused No.1 assured PW-1 that he will obtain the signature of Mr. Jawanjal and bring the order. PW-1 enquired as regards the procedure to be followed for renewal of the license. Accused No.1 informed PW-1 that he will have to get a challan made of Rs.10,000/- and that PW-1 will have to deposit the challan in the treasury office.

6. After reaching the office of A.C.B., PW-1 was called upon to bring the amount of Rs.60,000/-. The amount of Rs.60,000/- consisting 120 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/- was treated with anthracene powder. A.C.B. officials kept an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the pant pocket of PW-1. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was kept in his shirt pocket. PW-1 was instructed to give a missed call as soon as accused No.1 accepted the bribe amount.

7. PW-1 and panch witness entered the office of the accused No.1. PW-1 enquired with the accused No.1 whether Mr. Jawanjal had signed the order. Accused No.1 went in the cabin of Mr. Jawanjal and obtained the signature on the order and came back. Accused No.1 handed over the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document